![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Did anti-independentists boycott the referendum? The turnout suggests it was so. Шурбур ( talk) 07:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely without a hair of a doubt. Check the results for the non independent parties in the last elections (2015), youll se that at least 700k people did not vote in this referendum in order to abvoid the legitimation of any potential result (especially considering it was binding). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.111.111 ( talk) 00:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
You are right, but it is so difficult to rationalize/dcoument common sense, since I lived the situation I am proindependence and I know very well the half of barcelona that I know and that are not independentist not a single one went to vote as everyone acknowledges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumbleweed87 ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Here ypu have it. Cannot be proven factually, but the missing 700k unionist votes are exactly the amount of people that cheered in the street this morning in barcelona for the first mass-convoked non-nationalistic celebration (though a lot of people came from the rest of the spain). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
84.77.111.111 (
talk)
23:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Edgarmm81 ( talk) 17:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)People for the unionist celebration of the 8th of october 2017 came from all over Spain, not just catalans. [1]
I understand it needs the citations because it is controversial, but citations in mid sentence make it hard to read. Dysklyver 16:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
A proposal has been made to impose community sanctions including possible editing restrictions, on the topic of Catalan independence. Interested editors may join the discussion here. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I recommend that the Article be changed to eliminate unjustifiable quote marks where italics would be better. [Q] The referendum question, which voters answered with "Yes" or "No", was "Do you want Catalonia to become an independent state in the form of a republic?".[/Q]
Hello, since this is a controversial topic, I don't remove the following sentence by myself yet: "and is also illegal according to the Catalan Statutes of Autonomy which require a two third majority in the Catalan parliament for any change to Catalonia's status.". This is wrong: in the reference it says "La reforma del Estatuto de Autonomía exige dos tercios del Parlament, la misma mayoría reforzada que se reclama para elaborar una ley electoral catalana que aún está pendiente o para el nombramiento de determinados cargos.". This means: "two thirds of the Parlament are needed to change the Catalan Statues of Autonomy, to create a still pending electoral legislation or to appoint certain people for certain roles". Common sense would suggest you should need a similar consensus to pass the referendum law, but this would be law-fiction. This law is not illegal according to the Catalan Statutes of Autonomy. -- Xtv - ( my talk) - ( que dius que què?) 22:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
All of this is included in both Catalan Republic (2017) and 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis. This article covers the referendum (which was done by 1 October) and I think the scope of this is becoming too large and clashing with that of the other articles, which are already covering further events resulting from the referendum in a more detailed way. I believe the "Aftermath" section should be vastly summarized to explain just key consequences resulting from the referendum in a summarized way, then redirecting to these other articles for further info. Impru20 ( talk) 19:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The planning of the referendum and the resistance against the police that was trying to access the voting centers to remove the ballot boxes under a court order and the role of the Mossos at the referendum as one of the key issues of the court order.Excuse me, but the removed info revolved on the jailing of former Catalan Government members. It did not make any mention at all to what you say here. If you thing such an info is directly related to the referendum according to sources, then write it so that it is directly related to the article's topical scope. Because it's boring that some people just randomly keep copy-pasting content between articles without making a slight attempt at adapting it to the article's actual topic. We've got already three articles which featured the exact same content, written in a very similar way, and this was the fourth one in which this was happening. If there's something relevant in these events you expose related to the article's scope, then by all means show them here; but only in the way in which it relates to the article's main topic. Impru20 ( talk) 21:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I have been editing the irregularities section in the article, as definitive conclusions are taken from sources based on informations that could be easily forged. My edits have been reverted, though, so I considered discussing them here. Those are:
People allegedly voting more than once. There are sources claiming it was possible and other sources claiming it wasn't. These are both claims and should be given the same value, as presenting one as a fact ("people being able to vote more than once in some places") and the other as a claim ("despite organizers' claims to the contrary") is not NPOV. Also, the second source doesn't come from the organizers but from another media outlet.
Non-Catalans voting. In the source provided, all one can see is a video of someone casting a vote without any proof he is from Madrid, as stated. I consider this sort of proof dubious and propose, as with the others, to include that these are just claims and not facts.
Children voting. Are we seriously considering that some news based on a pic showing a child casting a vote are enough to undoubtedly claim children were allowed to vote? Parents allow their kids to cast their votes in ballot boxes all the time. As before, I would edit the statement to reflect the debatability of whether it actually happened or not.
Ballot boxes placed in the street. La Razon's cited article does not exist. The other video's original source has many people claiming this was a symbolic action undertaken after the police had confiscated the ballot boxes that had been used for the vote. Though in this case I'm not sure if this is enough to put the issue into doubt, I still think informations should be, again, presented as dubious.
Votes surpassing local censuses. I don't think any source is needed to defend this, it's pure logic. If universal census was implemented, local censuses are irrelevant and there isn't any irregularity if they're surpassed. Universal census means 1.000 people could perfectly cast their votes in a town with a census of 200. 77.225.54.74 ( talk) 13:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
People allegedly voting more than onceYou do not seem to have into account that there were more than 2,000 voting centers available. There are proofs that in some, people were able to vote more than once (indeed, some media reporters intentionally tried to do this in several polling stations, with success), whereas in others there were stricter controls. Plus the fact that there are accounts of people voting in several polling stations. So, there's not a "debate" on whether people could vote more than once. In some places they could. In some others, they couldn't. And some people voted in several places. Simple.
Non-Catalans votingThe source clearly details the lack of controls on voters. There are other sources reporting on this, so it's not that dubious. Anyway, I would note this together with the fact of peoples voting more than once, as they are both the consequence of the lack of control in polling stations on voter census.
Children votingOn this issue, I think you're right. Besides, OKDiario can hardly be considered a reliable source for anything.
Ballot boxes placed in the streetThere are even more sources of this than just these you added: [8] [9] [10] [11], etc. Impru20 ( talk) 14:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Votes surpassing local censusesIt may be "pure logic", but I'm sure as hell the whole "universal census" issue is quite weird in any given democracy. So, the fact of votes surpassing local censuses is highly notable by itself (though I'd link it to the universal census, and not show it as proof of an irregularity in itself). Impru20 ( talk) 14:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
English speakers familiar with common-law or constitutional freedom of speech (and actions similar to speech) are puzzled by the orders of the Constitutional Court of Spain such as sending police to restrain people and seize ballots. In the United States, for instance, a ruling that a process was invalid would simply have made the results meaningless, not sent police to arrest local officials or voters. A court can not make a finding of contempt or order of mandsmus contravening something which is a fundemental right.
In this regard, more information about the legal reasoning of the cited court decisions is needed.
25. "La mitad de los catalanes cree que el Parlament se someterá al TC". La Razón (in Spanish). 12 August 2016.
26. "Baròmetre d'Opinió Política 38. 2a onada 2016" (PDF). CEO (in Catalan). 22 July 2016.
73.81.149.203 ( talk) 23:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Edgarmm81 ( talk) 23:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)THAT IS YOUR OPINION. PLEASE, PROVIDE FACTS.
Through many years separatist have used this influence (their votes were necessary for the national level political parties to rule) to gain control of many areas that should have remained centralized like education.
Edgarmm81 ( talk) 23:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)EDUCATION COMPETENCE WAS NOT GAINED BECAUSE OF ANY HUNG PARLIAMENT, BUT STEMS FROM THE ESTATUT OF CATALONIA, ARTICLE 131.
Some text books for children show Catalonia a a nation and incite separation from Spain.
Edgarmm81 ( talk) 23:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC) PLEASE, COULD YOU PROVIDE ANY RELIABLE SOURCE ABOUT THAT INCONSISTENT FACT?
Years of this are obviously having an impact. They even passed and enforced laws preventing business from using Spanish on their store fronts by the use of heavy fines.
Edgarmm81 ( talk) 23:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)PLEASE, COULD YOU PROVIDE COURT RULINGS SUPPORTING THIS IDEA???
The main reason given by the separatists is their desire to have their own country as they consider themselves different
Edgarmm81 ( talk) 23:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)COULD YOU PROVIDE ANY RELIABLE SOURCE ABOUT CATALANS "Consider themselves different"?
and because according to them they contribute more to Spain than other less buoyant regions like Andalucía or Extremadura.
Edgarmm81 ( talk) 23:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POVERTY, BUT IT DOES WITH THE ORDINAL PRINCIPLE OF TAX SETTLEMENT AND SUBSEQUENT ALLOCATION (ARTICLE 206 OF THE ESTATUT OF CATALONIA, NULLED AND VOIDED BY THE SPANISH CONSTITUTONAL COURT.)
73.81.148.23 ( talk) 18:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
You cannot prove its 50% as that was 4 years ago, and still, theres a 50% of votes of the remaining 50% that are nationalistic but more socialist dialogue pro-referendum parties where some of them in a binary yes/no independence would vote yes/null/blank. Come on, even Ada Colau, major of Barcelona, who collaborated on the illegal referendum, is not representing an offitial pro-independence party (neither a clear pro-unionist). There was more than twice as people in the illegal refernedum demonstration (even the fear) than in today´s union demonstration (where a lot of people came from the rest of spain) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.111.111 ( talk) 00:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Your open question looks like containing several questions in one; so:
I took the time to go through the sources, and I am quite astonished to see they do not support the statements added. There are still other statements that would be recommended to go through, given the latest edit evidence. Plus please do not keep reverting automatically, be as precise as possible in the edit summary, since they do not hold water in the latest reverts to my clean-up edits. For other concerns with the latest bring them also here. Thanks Iñaki LL ( talk) 09:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
§PEOPLE ATTENDED IN CATALAN HOSPITALS BECAUSE OF THE SPANISH POLICE CHARGES WERE 1,066, INCLUDING 23 ELDERLY PEOPLE OVER 79 AND 2 BOYS UNDER 11. ONLY 12 POLICEMEN (11 SPANISH POLICE OFFICERS + 1 CATALAN OFFICER) [1] Edgarmm81 ( talk) 23:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
A source stating that Spanish Interior Ministry asserts that was possible voting more than one time while in the very same source the spokesman for the Catalan government denies it is used only for the first, just some words later. As no proof real multiple votings is given and only part of the info of the (unisgned) article is given, I remove it as biased, at least as references exist. -- Panotxa ( talk) 15:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Edgarmm81 ( talk) 19:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Please, proceed to remove the inaccurate points, as I have requested it several times and nobody did it.
1) With reference to the woman who had all the finger broken, one by one, Ms Marta Torrecillas, she took her accusation back on the following day [2]. The concept "investigation" is false.
So, please, remove or re-write the following quotation:
"A Republican Left of Catalonia (ERC) councillor accused the police deliberately breaking her fingers one by one and of sexual abuse during a polling station evacuation, but later investigation disproved these statements.[201][202][199]"
2) Regarding the introduction, the whole paragraph does not make sense:
"On the day of the referendum, the inaction of the autonomous police force of Catalonia, the Mossos d'Esquadra, allowed polling stations to open. The National Police Corps and the Guardia Civil intervened and raided polling stations after they opened.[35][36] 893 civilians and 431 agents of the Nacional Police and the Guardia Civil were reported to have been injured initially.[37][36][38] According to various sources these previously reported figures may have been exaggerated.[39] According to the judge from Barcelona that is currently investigating the accusations of police violence there were 218 persons injured on that day, 20 of which were agents.[40][41] The final official numbers by the Catalan government show that 1066 civilians and 11 agents of the National Police and the Guardia Civil, and 1 from the regional police the Mossos d'Esquadra were injured.[42]"
a) In connection with "The inaction of the autonomous police force of Catalonia, the Mossos d'Esquadra": that is simply false, but the Spanish Government spread that idea. In fact, it is believed Mossos d'Esquadra confiscated twice the amount of ballot boxes that the Spanish Policia Nacional did. [3] [4] [5] [6]. Besides, the Catalan police assured that Spanish police did not honour the coordination agreements [7] and the Public Prosecutor commanded local police to confiscate ballot boxes, too. [8] [9]
b) "893 civilians and 431 agents of the Nacional Police and the Guardia Civil were reported to have been injured initially.[37][36][38] According to various sources these previously reported figures may have been exaggerated.[39] According to the judge from Barcelona that is currently investigating the accusations of police violence there were 218 persons injured on that day, 20 of which were agents.[40][41] The final official numbers by the Catalan government show that 1066 civilians and 11 agents of the National Police and the Guardia Civil, and 1 from the regional police the Mossos d'Esquadra were injured.[42]". According to the only official report (the ones released by the Catalan Health Service), there were 1,066 civilian and 12 policemen wounded (not 431). Furthermore, the idea of 431 policemen wounded [10] is completely flaw because:
• The amount (431) was artifically inflated overnight (from 39, but no extra incident was registered that night) • This amount has never been contrasted. • No clinical report released, except for the Catalan Health Service that indicates just 11 policemen wounded. • Although antiriot police is equipped with GoPro camera, no visual evidence has been released of that extreme violence • There are no amateur videos suggesting wounded antiriot policemen or fierce violence; on the other hand, the videos show peaceful voters [11] • It is unlikely that a ratio 1 policemen wounded out of 2 civilian would not imply a police reinforcement or a modification of the strategy. • No further consequence, no Chief policemen resignation or fired as a result of that allegedly bad planning and/or execution. • Neither army nor extra police reinforcement deployed the following day.
References
These edits [17] and [18] are altering a paragraph that was highly discussed until a consensus was reached. In addition, he uses the temporary inaccuracy "Sunday" (what Sunday? What month, what year ...?). That was never mentioned on the page.
This version is the result of consensus after long discussions in a WP:RFC, in which this editor Iñaki LL participated [19]
For all these reasons, I restore (once again) the consensus version. -- BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 17:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Did anti-independentists boycott the referendum? The turnout suggests it was so. Шурбур ( talk) 07:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely without a hair of a doubt. Check the results for the non independent parties in the last elections (2015), youll se that at least 700k people did not vote in this referendum in order to abvoid the legitimation of any potential result (especially considering it was binding). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.111.111 ( talk) 00:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
You are right, but it is so difficult to rationalize/dcoument common sense, since I lived the situation I am proindependence and I know very well the half of barcelona that I know and that are not independentist not a single one went to vote as everyone acknowledges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumbleweed87 ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Here ypu have it. Cannot be proven factually, but the missing 700k unionist votes are exactly the amount of people that cheered in the street this morning in barcelona for the first mass-convoked non-nationalistic celebration (though a lot of people came from the rest of the spain). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
84.77.111.111 (
talk)
23:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Edgarmm81 ( talk) 17:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)People for the unionist celebration of the 8th of october 2017 came from all over Spain, not just catalans. [1]
I understand it needs the citations because it is controversial, but citations in mid sentence make it hard to read. Dysklyver 16:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
A proposal has been made to impose community sanctions including possible editing restrictions, on the topic of Catalan independence. Interested editors may join the discussion here. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I recommend that the Article be changed to eliminate unjustifiable quote marks where italics would be better. [Q] The referendum question, which voters answered with "Yes" or "No", was "Do you want Catalonia to become an independent state in the form of a republic?".[/Q]
Hello, since this is a controversial topic, I don't remove the following sentence by myself yet: "and is also illegal according to the Catalan Statutes of Autonomy which require a two third majority in the Catalan parliament for any change to Catalonia's status.". This is wrong: in the reference it says "La reforma del Estatuto de Autonomía exige dos tercios del Parlament, la misma mayoría reforzada que se reclama para elaborar una ley electoral catalana que aún está pendiente o para el nombramiento de determinados cargos.". This means: "two thirds of the Parlament are needed to change the Catalan Statues of Autonomy, to create a still pending electoral legislation or to appoint certain people for certain roles". Common sense would suggest you should need a similar consensus to pass the referendum law, but this would be law-fiction. This law is not illegal according to the Catalan Statutes of Autonomy. -- Xtv - ( my talk) - ( que dius que què?) 22:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
All of this is included in both Catalan Republic (2017) and 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis. This article covers the referendum (which was done by 1 October) and I think the scope of this is becoming too large and clashing with that of the other articles, which are already covering further events resulting from the referendum in a more detailed way. I believe the "Aftermath" section should be vastly summarized to explain just key consequences resulting from the referendum in a summarized way, then redirecting to these other articles for further info. Impru20 ( talk) 19:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The planning of the referendum and the resistance against the police that was trying to access the voting centers to remove the ballot boxes under a court order and the role of the Mossos at the referendum as one of the key issues of the court order.Excuse me, but the removed info revolved on the jailing of former Catalan Government members. It did not make any mention at all to what you say here. If you thing such an info is directly related to the referendum according to sources, then write it so that it is directly related to the article's topical scope. Because it's boring that some people just randomly keep copy-pasting content between articles without making a slight attempt at adapting it to the article's actual topic. We've got already three articles which featured the exact same content, written in a very similar way, and this was the fourth one in which this was happening. If there's something relevant in these events you expose related to the article's scope, then by all means show them here; but only in the way in which it relates to the article's main topic. Impru20 ( talk) 21:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I have been editing the irregularities section in the article, as definitive conclusions are taken from sources based on informations that could be easily forged. My edits have been reverted, though, so I considered discussing them here. Those are:
People allegedly voting more than once. There are sources claiming it was possible and other sources claiming it wasn't. These are both claims and should be given the same value, as presenting one as a fact ("people being able to vote more than once in some places") and the other as a claim ("despite organizers' claims to the contrary") is not NPOV. Also, the second source doesn't come from the organizers but from another media outlet.
Non-Catalans voting. In the source provided, all one can see is a video of someone casting a vote without any proof he is from Madrid, as stated. I consider this sort of proof dubious and propose, as with the others, to include that these are just claims and not facts.
Children voting. Are we seriously considering that some news based on a pic showing a child casting a vote are enough to undoubtedly claim children were allowed to vote? Parents allow their kids to cast their votes in ballot boxes all the time. As before, I would edit the statement to reflect the debatability of whether it actually happened or not.
Ballot boxes placed in the street. La Razon's cited article does not exist. The other video's original source has many people claiming this was a symbolic action undertaken after the police had confiscated the ballot boxes that had been used for the vote. Though in this case I'm not sure if this is enough to put the issue into doubt, I still think informations should be, again, presented as dubious.
Votes surpassing local censuses. I don't think any source is needed to defend this, it's pure logic. If universal census was implemented, local censuses are irrelevant and there isn't any irregularity if they're surpassed. Universal census means 1.000 people could perfectly cast their votes in a town with a census of 200. 77.225.54.74 ( talk) 13:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
People allegedly voting more than onceYou do not seem to have into account that there were more than 2,000 voting centers available. There are proofs that in some, people were able to vote more than once (indeed, some media reporters intentionally tried to do this in several polling stations, with success), whereas in others there were stricter controls. Plus the fact that there are accounts of people voting in several polling stations. So, there's not a "debate" on whether people could vote more than once. In some places they could. In some others, they couldn't. And some people voted in several places. Simple.
Non-Catalans votingThe source clearly details the lack of controls on voters. There are other sources reporting on this, so it's not that dubious. Anyway, I would note this together with the fact of peoples voting more than once, as they are both the consequence of the lack of control in polling stations on voter census.
Children votingOn this issue, I think you're right. Besides, OKDiario can hardly be considered a reliable source for anything.
Ballot boxes placed in the streetThere are even more sources of this than just these you added: [8] [9] [10] [11], etc. Impru20 ( talk) 14:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Votes surpassing local censusesIt may be "pure logic", but I'm sure as hell the whole "universal census" issue is quite weird in any given democracy. So, the fact of votes surpassing local censuses is highly notable by itself (though I'd link it to the universal census, and not show it as proof of an irregularity in itself). Impru20 ( talk) 14:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
English speakers familiar with common-law or constitutional freedom of speech (and actions similar to speech) are puzzled by the orders of the Constitutional Court of Spain such as sending police to restrain people and seize ballots. In the United States, for instance, a ruling that a process was invalid would simply have made the results meaningless, not sent police to arrest local officials or voters. A court can not make a finding of contempt or order of mandsmus contravening something which is a fundemental right.
In this regard, more information about the legal reasoning of the cited court decisions is needed.
25. "La mitad de los catalanes cree que el Parlament se someterá al TC". La Razón (in Spanish). 12 August 2016.
26. "Baròmetre d'Opinió Política 38. 2a onada 2016" (PDF). CEO (in Catalan). 22 July 2016.
73.81.149.203 ( talk) 23:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Edgarmm81 ( talk) 23:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)THAT IS YOUR OPINION. PLEASE, PROVIDE FACTS.
Through many years separatist have used this influence (their votes were necessary for the national level political parties to rule) to gain control of many areas that should have remained centralized like education.
Edgarmm81 ( talk) 23:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)EDUCATION COMPETENCE WAS NOT GAINED BECAUSE OF ANY HUNG PARLIAMENT, BUT STEMS FROM THE ESTATUT OF CATALONIA, ARTICLE 131.
Some text books for children show Catalonia a a nation and incite separation from Spain.
Edgarmm81 ( talk) 23:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC) PLEASE, COULD YOU PROVIDE ANY RELIABLE SOURCE ABOUT THAT INCONSISTENT FACT?
Years of this are obviously having an impact. They even passed and enforced laws preventing business from using Spanish on their store fronts by the use of heavy fines.
Edgarmm81 ( talk) 23:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)PLEASE, COULD YOU PROVIDE COURT RULINGS SUPPORTING THIS IDEA???
The main reason given by the separatists is their desire to have their own country as they consider themselves different
Edgarmm81 ( talk) 23:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)COULD YOU PROVIDE ANY RELIABLE SOURCE ABOUT CATALANS "Consider themselves different"?
and because according to them they contribute more to Spain than other less buoyant regions like Andalucía or Extremadura.
Edgarmm81 ( talk) 23:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POVERTY, BUT IT DOES WITH THE ORDINAL PRINCIPLE OF TAX SETTLEMENT AND SUBSEQUENT ALLOCATION (ARTICLE 206 OF THE ESTATUT OF CATALONIA, NULLED AND VOIDED BY THE SPANISH CONSTITUTONAL COURT.)
73.81.148.23 ( talk) 18:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
You cannot prove its 50% as that was 4 years ago, and still, theres a 50% of votes of the remaining 50% that are nationalistic but more socialist dialogue pro-referendum parties where some of them in a binary yes/no independence would vote yes/null/blank. Come on, even Ada Colau, major of Barcelona, who collaborated on the illegal referendum, is not representing an offitial pro-independence party (neither a clear pro-unionist). There was more than twice as people in the illegal refernedum demonstration (even the fear) than in today´s union demonstration (where a lot of people came from the rest of spain) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.111.111 ( talk) 00:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Your open question looks like containing several questions in one; so:
I took the time to go through the sources, and I am quite astonished to see they do not support the statements added. There are still other statements that would be recommended to go through, given the latest edit evidence. Plus please do not keep reverting automatically, be as precise as possible in the edit summary, since they do not hold water in the latest reverts to my clean-up edits. For other concerns with the latest bring them also here. Thanks Iñaki LL ( talk) 09:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
§PEOPLE ATTENDED IN CATALAN HOSPITALS BECAUSE OF THE SPANISH POLICE CHARGES WERE 1,066, INCLUDING 23 ELDERLY PEOPLE OVER 79 AND 2 BOYS UNDER 11. ONLY 12 POLICEMEN (11 SPANISH POLICE OFFICERS + 1 CATALAN OFFICER) [1] Edgarmm81 ( talk) 23:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
A source stating that Spanish Interior Ministry asserts that was possible voting more than one time while in the very same source the spokesman for the Catalan government denies it is used only for the first, just some words later. As no proof real multiple votings is given and only part of the info of the (unisgned) article is given, I remove it as biased, at least as references exist. -- Panotxa ( talk) 15:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Edgarmm81 ( talk) 19:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Please, proceed to remove the inaccurate points, as I have requested it several times and nobody did it.
1) With reference to the woman who had all the finger broken, one by one, Ms Marta Torrecillas, she took her accusation back on the following day [2]. The concept "investigation" is false.
So, please, remove or re-write the following quotation:
"A Republican Left of Catalonia (ERC) councillor accused the police deliberately breaking her fingers one by one and of sexual abuse during a polling station evacuation, but later investigation disproved these statements.[201][202][199]"
2) Regarding the introduction, the whole paragraph does not make sense:
"On the day of the referendum, the inaction of the autonomous police force of Catalonia, the Mossos d'Esquadra, allowed polling stations to open. The National Police Corps and the Guardia Civil intervened and raided polling stations after they opened.[35][36] 893 civilians and 431 agents of the Nacional Police and the Guardia Civil were reported to have been injured initially.[37][36][38] According to various sources these previously reported figures may have been exaggerated.[39] According to the judge from Barcelona that is currently investigating the accusations of police violence there were 218 persons injured on that day, 20 of which were agents.[40][41] The final official numbers by the Catalan government show that 1066 civilians and 11 agents of the National Police and the Guardia Civil, and 1 from the regional police the Mossos d'Esquadra were injured.[42]"
a) In connection with "The inaction of the autonomous police force of Catalonia, the Mossos d'Esquadra": that is simply false, but the Spanish Government spread that idea. In fact, it is believed Mossos d'Esquadra confiscated twice the amount of ballot boxes that the Spanish Policia Nacional did. [3] [4] [5] [6]. Besides, the Catalan police assured that Spanish police did not honour the coordination agreements [7] and the Public Prosecutor commanded local police to confiscate ballot boxes, too. [8] [9]
b) "893 civilians and 431 agents of the Nacional Police and the Guardia Civil were reported to have been injured initially.[37][36][38] According to various sources these previously reported figures may have been exaggerated.[39] According to the judge from Barcelona that is currently investigating the accusations of police violence there were 218 persons injured on that day, 20 of which were agents.[40][41] The final official numbers by the Catalan government show that 1066 civilians and 11 agents of the National Police and the Guardia Civil, and 1 from the regional police the Mossos d'Esquadra were injured.[42]". According to the only official report (the ones released by the Catalan Health Service), there were 1,066 civilian and 12 policemen wounded (not 431). Furthermore, the idea of 431 policemen wounded [10] is completely flaw because:
• The amount (431) was artifically inflated overnight (from 39, but no extra incident was registered that night) • This amount has never been contrasted. • No clinical report released, except for the Catalan Health Service that indicates just 11 policemen wounded. • Although antiriot police is equipped with GoPro camera, no visual evidence has been released of that extreme violence • There are no amateur videos suggesting wounded antiriot policemen or fierce violence; on the other hand, the videos show peaceful voters [11] • It is unlikely that a ratio 1 policemen wounded out of 2 civilian would not imply a police reinforcement or a modification of the strategy. • No further consequence, no Chief policemen resignation or fired as a result of that allegedly bad planning and/or execution. • Neither army nor extra police reinforcement deployed the following day.
References
These edits [17] and [18] are altering a paragraph that was highly discussed until a consensus was reached. In addition, he uses the temporary inaccuracy "Sunday" (what Sunday? What month, what year ...?). That was never mentioned on the page.
This version is the result of consensus after long discussions in a WP:RFC, in which this editor Iñaki LL participated [19]
For all these reasons, I restore (once again) the consensus version. -- BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 17:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)